word_count

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a cost of $0.001 USDC via x402, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds minimal value beyond the cost.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and under-specified, lacking a clear verb or instruction. While it is concise, it fails to earn its place as a functional description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description gives no information about return values or acceptable inputs. Among many sibling text-analysis tools, this description provides no differentiation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has one parameter 'params' with generic description 'Tool parameters as JSON object', so coverage is 100%. The description adds no information about what keys the params object should contain. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage, but no additional semantics are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description merely restates the tool name ('word count') and adds a generic category label ('Other Utilities tool'), with no verb or resource described. It fails to state what the tool actually does, such as counting words in provided text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like char_count or line_count. No context or exclusions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.